Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)

Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)
Doren, Dennis; Epperson, Douglas
2004-10-16 00:00:00
Janus and Meehl (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1997), 3(1), 33–64) employed a sophisticated analysis to discover what is the actual standard that judges use in determining which sex offenders meet criteria for a civil commitment within the purviews of “sexual predator” laws. Their analysis relied on various assumptions, most of which were specified and explicated by the authors. They concluded that the judiciary does not even approach meeting the standards that it sets for itself when it comes to adjudicating the threshold for these types of commitments. Two of the fundamental underlying assumptions within their analysis may be seriously flawed, however. Using current information related to either of these assumptions, without changing any other aspect of the analysis, the ultimate finding concerning the judiciary standard would actually be reversed from what Janus and Meehl concluded.
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.pngSexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and TreatmentSpringer Journalshttp://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/great-analysis-but-problematic-assumptions-a-critique-of-janus-and-B6CqIqbi7z

Great Analysis, But Problematic Assumptions: A Critique of Janus and Meehl (1997)

Abstract

Janus and Meehl (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (1997), 3(1), 33–64) employed a sophisticated analysis to discover what is the actual standard that judges use in determining which sex offenders meet criteria for a civil commitment within the purviews of “sexual predator” laws. Their analysis relied on various assumptions, most of which were specified and explicated by the authors. They concluded that the judiciary does not even approach meeting the standards that it sets for itself when it comes to adjudicating the threshold for these types of commitments. Two of the fundamental underlying assumptions within their analysis may be seriously flawed, however. Using current information related to either of these assumptions, without changing any other aspect of the analysis, the ultimate finding concerning the judiciary standard would actually be reversed from what Janus and Meehl concluded.